In Hans Christian Andersen's classic tale of The
Emperor's New Clothes, two charlatans come to the Emperor's city, posing as weavers of
such fine fabrics that only the truly intelligent can see them. The charlatans are hired
by the Emperor, and in exchange they will receive gold and silk to weave the fabric. The
ruse is simple enough: appeal to the intellectual vanity of the Emperor and his court.
Each member of the Emperor's court in turn is sent to the charlatans room to check
on the progress of the fabric. Each returns to the Emperor "bedazzled" by the
beauty of the fabric. No one in the Emperor's court wants to appear dim-witted and admit
that there is no fabric to be seen. The ruse is complete on the day the Emperor is to show
off his new clothes. There in the dressing room stands the naked Emperor, with his court
and the charlatans, each gushing over the beautiful colors and textures of the nonexistent
fabric. Although the Emperor can see that he is entirely naked, he too refuses to admit
that there is no fabric to be seen. It takes the clear-minded honesty of a child to point
out the nakedness of the Emperor.

I have often used this tale in closing arguments, because of the many
wonderful parallels that exist between it and Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. Since 1991, I
have spent nearly 4,000 hours counseling, litigating, and defending these cases
nationwide. I have consulted with the most preeminent medical scholars in the fields of
genetics, microbiology, immunology, neurology, infectious disease, gastroenterology,
psychiatry and more, only to find that the allegations against the mothers were as
threadbare as the Emperor's new clothes. As a result of my work I have successfully
reunited five families and have helped dozens of other attorneys nationwide do the same.
In each of these cases, a child was taken from his or her mother because someone claimed
that the mother "suffered" from Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

The essence of this "disorder," as described by the
"hired gun" experts, seems to be that the mother medically maltreats her child
to gain the attention or approval of doctors. The reasons given by these experts as to why
a mother would do this smacks of misogyny, or as I like to call it in court, pure
unadulterated "mommy bashing." The reasons testified to range from "women
are much more manipulative than men" to "women have become enamored with doctors
as saviors, through the medium of daytime and nighttime medical soap dramas." Keep in
mind that these "hired gun" experts are also professors of medicine in our
nation's medical schools.

The problem is that the "hired gun" experts cannot agree on
what to call this "disorder," much less agree on how to define it. These experts
have alternately referred to this "disorder" as "Munchausen Syndrome by
Proxy," "Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome," "Munchausen by Proxy,"
and 'Factitious Disorder by Proxy." Each of these labels carries with it a vastly
different definition, each more vague and equivocal than the next. Is this a mental health
disorder residing within the mother? Or is it a description of an act of medical abuse of
the child? Who gets the label, the mother or the child? There are many other important
questions left begging for answers. Unfortunately, the relevant medical community cannot
even agree on what the answers to these questions are.

The profile used to identify "perpetrators" of this disorder
is equally pusillanimous. For example, one characteristic that consistently makes the
lists of the "hired gun" experts is that the mother is convincing in her denial
of the allegations. How is this predictive of anything? One can easily imagine a truly
innocent mother testifying sincerely and convincingly about her innocence, only to have
the judge check off one more element of the profile as having been met. Of course, if she
is nervous about testifying in court and appears less than convincing, that will be
counted against her as well. It is like the old childhood ruse of "Heads I Win. Tails
you lose."

The literature on Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome is replete with warnings
that only those doctors and scientists who are well versed in the supposed permutations of
this "disorder" can see it. In support of this dire warning, no less an expert
than Herbert Schreier, M.D. cautions, in his book, Hurting for Love, how, during an
interview of a mother accused of MBPS, he was once almost duped into believing that she
was innocent. It was not until Dr. Schreier left the interview and had his faith
reaffirmed by other knowledgeable doctors that he realized what was going on. With this
type of dire warning coming from experts, it is no wonder that social workers, police, and
eventually judges themselves get pulled into the ruse. Just as in The Emperors
New Clothes, nobody wants to admit that he or she just does not see "it." By
the time a MBPS case gets to the judge, it is replete with dubious experts, social
workers, detectives, and nervous treating physicians who by now have all jumped on the
"Munchausen Bandwagon.' Unless the mother is fabulously wealthy, she will be no match
for the unlimited resources of the state, and her family will be destroyed.

With all this "evidence" amassed against a mother, few judges
would be willing to admit that they just do not see this esoteric "disorder." In
one case I am aware of, the trial judge acknowledged in her findings that she did not see
Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome; however, she went on to enter the finding anyway. The
judge's reasoning was that the state had provided her with more experts on the subject
than the mother did. Indeed, some courts have held that all that is needed for a finding
of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome is a chronically ill child with baffling symptoms and a
mother who fits the "profile" (see In re Jessica Z, 135 Misc.2d 250, 515
N.Y.S.2d 370 [N.Y. 1987]). In Jessica Z the court unbelievably applied the tort doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur (literally "the thing speaks for itself"). This
doctrine is used in personal injury cases where there are no eyewitnesses to an
injury-producing event. This doctrine further requires the defendant to have exclusive
control over the thing or instrument that causes injury. Lastly, this doctrine holds that
no other possible explanation can exist, except that the defendant must have been
negligent in the control of the object. To have any viability, the application of res
ipsa loquitur in the Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome setting would require the mother to
have exclusive control over the child at all times. The application of res ipsa
loquitur fails to take into consideration the doctors, nurses, therapists,
technicians, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, stepbrothers, and others who come into
frequent, regular contact with the sick child.

Making sense of all this nonsense has been difficult until now. David
Allison and Mark Roberts have done a masterful job of analyzing the historical context of
Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. They expertly guide the reader through the development of
witchcraft and hysteria as precursors to the modern-day Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. The
authors deftly show how fear, prejudice, and distrust of women have been defined,
classified, and codified into societal acceptance by the very institutions that have the
most to gain from the exclusion of women. This is especially true of in the field of
medicine. According to a recent study (1997) the majority of all health care decisions in
the United States are made by women. Given the rapid advancement of managed health care in
the last 10 years, health care Professionals and their payors (read that as insurance
companies) are "incentivized" to remove any woman who is perceived as
overutilizing the system.

Allison and Roberts are at their best in this book, when they bring the
bright hot light of their critical thinking to bear on Schreier and Libow's work, Hurting
for Love. Allison and Roberts point out, with tremendous insight, the internal
inconsistencies, the lack of scientific support, and the sheer reification of supposed
facts in Schreier and Libow's work. If society is going to take effective steps to
eradicate child abuse, it needs something much more substantial than Hurting for Love
before it steps in and destroys a family. Allison and Roberts's work set forth in this
book is Exhibit "A" of that fact.

What Allison and Roberts have done here is not just fire a warning shot
across the bow of the "Good Ship Munchausen." Indeed, they have fired an Exocet
missile right into its midsection.